Agenda item

To receive any petitions in accordance with Standing Order 68. Notice should be given in writing or by email to the Community Partnership and Committee Officer at least 14 days before the meeting. Alternatively, the petition can be submitted on-line through Surrey County Council’s e-petitions website as long as the minimum number of signatures (30) has been reached 14 days before the meeting.

 

 

Petition 1 – Petition received from Diane Brown regarding Road Safety on  Pendell Road, Bletchingley.

 

Petition 2 – Petition received from Davina Matlock regarding road safety on Godstone Road, Whyteleafe.

Petition 1

 

The Local Committee is asked to:

 

(i)         AGREED that the road safety engineering team will meet with the resident/petitioners on site to help understand the extent and nature of the problem. Following investigation a highway safety scheme will be developed for implementation within the next financial year. This will be funded from the council’s central budget for addressing collision hotspots managed by the road safety engineering team.

Petition 1

 

Declarations of Interest: None

 

Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

 

The lead petitioner Diane Brown presented the petition. She thanked Officers for the response and welcomed a meeting with Officers on site. The owner of the dog grooming business, Linda Barker was also in attendance and offered to show the Committee in excess of 250 photographs of cars which had had an accident on the section of road outside of her property. In 12 months, 16 cars have driven into her fence. 

 

It was asked why only one serious accident at the site had been recorded as emergency services often attend on a regular basis, yet these do not seem to be logged.

 

The Area Highway Manager, responded on behalf of the Road Safety Team.  She  thank Mrs Brown and Mrs Barker for their petition and appreciated it is often distressing to see an accident outside of your property.  In terms of the logging of an accident, whilst the emergency services maybe called, it is only logged as a personal injury should treatment of the driver, passengers or pedestrian be required, otherwise it is categorised as damage only. 

 

 

Member discussion – key points:

·         Concern was raised that accidents were serious enough to require the emergency services, which uses public funding, however these are not recorded. In failing to record them, it does not allow the issue to be highlighted to the Road Safety Team.

 

The Area Highways Manager explained that the system is used to address personal injury first.  Repeated instances of damage only and anecdotal information from residents is taken into consideration, and considered by the Road Safety Team as in this instance.

 

 

Resolution

 

The Local Committee:

 

(i)            AGREED that the road safety engineering team will meet with the resident/petitioners on site to help understand the extent and nature of the problem. Following investigation a highway safety scheme will be developed for implementation within the next financial year. This will be funded from the council’s central budget for addressing collision hotspots managed by the road safety engineering team.

 

 

Petition 2

 

Declarations of Interest: None

 

Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

 

The lead petitioner, Davina Matlock was unable to attend the meeting.  The Divisional Member for Caterham Valley, read her statement to the Committee advising members that the petition was prompted following a fatality on Godstone Road in January.

 

Mrs Matlock stated that she and many other parents in the Whyteleafe Community felt unsafe crossing Godstone Road.  In the past 6 months, residents have witnessed lorries mounting the pavement to get past another lorry on the other side of the road and quad bikes using this road as speedway, a death and people parking on the pavements indiscriminately.  Outside 331 Godstone Road the road narrows and the pathway extremely and causes zero visibility for drivers.

 

She felt there needed to be a change to the roads around the Whyteleafe Community area.  A zebra crossing/further traffic light is required between Whyteleafe parade of shops and Whyteleafe South.  This can be positioned in a number of places along the stretch of road and would not impend on bus stops or driveways along the area.  A zebra crossing/further traffic light could be positioned at the bottom of Hillbury Road to enable the safe crossing to either to the bus stop (for Warlingham) or down from Warlingham School or to the park.   It was asked if speed cameras could be installed at crossings to prevent drivers constantly jumping the lights/crossing.  More signs warning of speed reduction and road speed along Whyteleafe as pedestrians  are crossing.

 

 

The Divisional Member, supported the petition and raised the following points;

 

1)    The A22 is a wide road as it enters Whyteleafe (northbound), but then dramatically narrows near Hillbury Road, close to where the fatality happened in January. It was asked what can Highways do either to reduce speed, considering the number of HGVs using this truck road, and also in regards to the narrow pavement on the western side?

 

2)    There have been a number of accidents that have occurred on this stretch of road, however if speed is not a factor, are there any repeat factors that officers are seeing?

 

3)    In the response Hillbury Road was not mentioned, but it may be helpful if officers could provide information about this road.

 

4)    The response refers to a question raised by the Village Council to the Local Committee in 2018. Their request for a crossing, and it was advised that this would be put on the ITS, would it be possible to have an update on this and is there anything that he could do with his funds or help to facilitate the Village Council using their CIL money.

 

 

The Area Highways Manager, responded to the points raised by both the lead petitioner and Divisional Member. 

 

There is a small informal crossing on Hillbury Road at the junction with the A22.  It is a narrow island as it was designed and complies with the standards of when it was installed. At the moment, whilst the request for an additional crossing does not score highly enough for the limited ITS funding, she would be happy to discuss further with the Village Council and Divisional Member. 

 

Only the Police have the legal powers to take action on drivers who drive through red lights at crossings.  Neither the County Council or Parking Enforcement Officers are able to take action.

 

The speed on that section of the A22 is 30mph and as there are street lights and traffic lights along the road, SCC are unable to install repeater signs displaying the speed limit.  We can review the signs, to see if a Vehicle Activated Sign could be installed, but this would need to be in partnership with the Road Safety Team.  The Divisional Member advised that there are Vehicle Activated Signs southbound, there is question from the Village Council at item 5 of the meeting, as they are not working, so SCC need to ensure they are working properly.

 

With regards to an update on the request for a crossing, it was advised that it had not been prioritised.  It was explained that there are three types of crossings available; the cost of an informal crossing is around £20,000, a zebra crossing cost approximately £75,000 and a traffic light controlled crossing would cost around £250,000, sometimes considerably more. A feasibility study would need to be carried out first and the Village Council can use their CIL funding on this should they so wish. 

 

 

Members – Key Points

 

1)    The Cabinet Member for Highways has advised that the County Council will not fund feasibility studies.  It was felt that there was a major structural problem in the Highways budget if third parties, such as Parish Councils are being asked to fund feasibility studies for schemes that are accepted as an option which should be explored to resolve an issue.  Whilst Members were supportive of working together with CIL across the three tiers of Councils in Tandridge, it was felt that asking a Parish to fund a feasibility study becomes a blockage to cooperation and working together.

 

It was suggested that the Chairman of the Local Committee raise the concerns of the committee to the Cabinet Member, querying if asking  Parishes to fund feasibility studies, which may not be constructed, is an appropriate way of managing the demand on highway services.

 

2)    It was asked why feasibility studies cost approximately £5000 as a minimum, (with some costing between £10,000- £15,000) and was it necessary to have detailed feasibility studies as the start of the process?

 

The Area Highways Manager advised that the feasibility study is good value in comparison to using an external consultant. The feasibility study is part of the design process and is to protect the investment.  For example, understanding any drainage issues or location of underground utilities, which may conclude that the suggested location is not a suitable or indicating measures which may need to be additional funding to be factored in to the final cost.  This reduces any unforeseen costings due to issues relating to these during the construction process.

 

3)    It was suggested that a feasibility study should be considered as part of the whole project cost.  Should a scheme be deemed necessary by the County Council and proceeds through to construction, the cost of the feasibility study should be returned to the Parish Council, as the project cost should be met by the County Council.  

 

The Chairman, confirmed on behalf of the Committee he and Mr Chris Botten would take this matter forward with the Cabinet Member for Highways.

 

4)    With regards to the petition, it was asked of the Divisional Member if a review of the on street parking on that section of Godstone Road, would be beneficial.  Mr Lee advised that he felt there could be a number of options to consider to assist with the issue.  If parking restrictions were installed this would reduce parking spaces for local residents, who have no off street parking and would create a further issue.  The Divisional Member would welcome a discussion with a members of the Road Safety,  Local Highways and Parking Teams to explore what could be done. 

 

 Resolution

 

The Local Committee:

 

(i)            AGREED to note the contents of the response.

 

 

The Chairman thanked Mrs Brown and Mrs Matlock, for their time in submitting a petition and bringing their concerns to the Local Committee’s attention.